Redistricting in Florida

in  Florida

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* Florida state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Florida
* Finance
* Financial regulation in Florida
* Pensions
* Public pensions in Florida
* Pension health in Florida
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in Florida
* Campaign finance requirements in Florida
* Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in Florida
* Education
* Charter schools in Florida
* Higher education in Florida
* Public education in Florida
* School choice in Florida
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Florida
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in Florida
* Political parties in Florida
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Florida
* Redistricting in Florida
* Voting in Florida
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in Florida
* Fracking in Florida
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Florida
* Endangered species in Florida
* Environmental policy in Florida
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in Florida
* Medicaid spending in Florida
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Florida
* Immigration
* Immigration in Florida

* * *

* * *

Redistricting after the 2020 census

Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

* * *

The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting before 2026 elections
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
* 1.2 Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
* 1.3 State-based requirements
* 1.4 Methods
* 1.5 Gerrymandering
* 1.6 Recent court decisions
* 1.7 Race and ethnicity
* 2 State process
* 2.1 How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
* 3 District maps
* 3.1 Congressional districts
* 3.2 State legislative maps
* 4 Redistricting by cycle
* 4.1 Redistricting after the 2020 census
* 4.2 Enacted congressional district maps
* 4.2.1 Reactions
* 4.2.2 2020 presidential results
* 4.3 Enacted state legislative district maps
* 4.3.1 State Senate map
* 4.3.2 State House map
* 4.3.3 Reactions
* 4.4 Redistricting after the 2010 census
* 4.5 Congressional redistricting, 2010
* 4.5.1 Legal challenges
* 4.6 State legislative redistricting, 2010
* 4.6.1 Legal challenges
* 5 State legislation and ballot measures
* 5.1 Redistricting legislation
* 5.2 Redistricting ballot measures
* 6 Political impacts of redistricting
* 6.1 Competitiveness
* 6.1.1 State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle
* 7 Recent news
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Florida's 28 United States Representatives and 160 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]

Florida was apportioned 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, one more than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Following the 2020 United States Census, Florida was apportioned 28 congressional districts, one more than the number it had after the 2010 census.

* Florida's House of Representatives is made up of 120 districts; Florida's State Senate is made up of 40 districts.

* In Florida, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature.

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida upheld the state's congressional map after it was struck down by a lower court on Sep. 2, 2023. As a result, this map was used for Florida's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida's order:

“  | This case involves constitutional challenges to the congressional districting map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis and enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 ... Plaintiffs had to prove both discriminatory effects and a discriminatory purpose. They proved neither. Thus, [we] concur in the decision to grant judgment in the Secretary’s favor.[5][6] | ”

|
|

On December 1, 2023, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled 8-2 that the redistricting plan did not unconstitutionally limit Black voting power.[7] The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which heard arguments on September 12, 2024.[8]

On March 3, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved new legislative maps drawn by the Florida State Legislature. These maps took effect for Florida's 2022 legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Florida
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Florida
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Florida's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

## Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

### Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[9][10]

“  | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[6] | ”

|
|

—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[11][12][13]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[13]

### Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[13]

### State-based requirements[edit]

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[13][14]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[13][14]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[13][14]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[13][14]

### Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[15]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

### Gerrymandering[edit]

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][16]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[17]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[18][19]

### Recent court decisions[edit]

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

#### Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)[edit]

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[20] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[21] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[22]

#### Moore v. Harper (2023)[edit]

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[23] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[24]

#### Merrill v. Milligan (2023)[edit]

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[25]

#### Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[26]

#### Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[27][28][29]

#### Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[30][31][32][33]

#### Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[34][35][36]

#### Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[37][38][39][40]

### Race and ethnicity[edit]

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“  | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[6] | ”

|
|

—Voting Rights Act of 1965[41]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Florida was home to nine congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

## State process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Florida, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. Congressional lines are adopted as regular legislation and are subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative lines are passed via joint resolution and are not subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative district maps are automatically submitted to the Florida Supreme Court for approval. In the event that the court rejects the lines, the legislature is given a second chance to draft a plan. If the legislature cannot approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state attorney general must ask the state supreme court to draft a plan. There are no similar procedures in place for congressional districts.[42]

The Florida Constitution requires that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, be contiguous. Also, "where doing so does not conflict with minority rights, [districts] must be compact and utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible." Districts cannot be drawn in such a way as to "favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent."[42][43]

### How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting[edit]

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Florida, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

## District maps[edit]

### Congressional districts[edit]

See also: United States congressional delegations from Florida

The table below lists Florida's current House representatives.

Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends

|
|
|
|

U.S. House Florida District 1 | Jimmy Patronis | Republican  | April 2, 2025 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 2 | Neal Dunn | Republican  | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 3 | Kat Cammack | Republican  | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 4 | Aaron Bean | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 5 | John Rutherford | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 6 | Randy Fine | Republican  | April 2, 2025 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 7 | Cory Mills | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 8 | Mike Haridopolos | Republican  | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 9 | Darren Soto | Democratic  | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 10 | Maxwell Alejandro Frost | Democratic  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 11 | Daniel Webster | Republican  | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 12 | Gus M. Bilirakis | Republican  | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 13 | Anna Paulina Luna | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 14 | Kathy Castor | Democratic  | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 15 | Laurel Lee | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 16 | Vern Buchanan | Republican  | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 17 | Greg Steube | Republican  | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 18 | Scott Franklin | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 19 | Byron Donalds | Republican  | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 20 | Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick | Democratic  | January 18, 2022 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 21 | Brian Mast | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 22 | Lois Frankel | Democratic  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 23 | Jared Evan Moskowitz | Democratic  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 24 | Frederica S. Wilson | Democratic  | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 25 | Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Democratic  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 26 | Mario Diaz-Balart | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 27 | Maria Elvira Salazar | Republican  | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027
U.S. House Florida District 28 | Carlos Gimenez | Republican  | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027

### State legislative maps[edit]

See also: Florida State Senate and Florida House of Representatives

Florida comprises 40 state Senate districts and 120 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.[44]

## Redistricting by cycle[edit]

### Redistricting after the 2020 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census

Florida was apportioned 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[45]

### Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida upheld the state's congressional map after it was struck down by a lower court on Sep. 2, 2023. As a result, this map was used for Florida's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida's order:

“  | This case involves constitutional challenges to the congressional districting map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis and enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 ... Plaintiffs had to prove both discriminatory effects and a discriminatory purpose. They proved neither. Thus, [we] concur in the decision to grant judgment in the Secretary’s favor.[5][6] | ”

|
|

On December 1, 2023, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled 8-2 that the redistricting plan did not unconstitutionally limit Black voting power.[46] The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which heard arguments on September 12, 2024.[47]

On September 2, 2023, Leon County Circuit Court Judge J. Lee Marsh struck down enacted North Florida congressional districts and ordered the Legislature to redraw district boundaries.[48] On June 2, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court had declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map, which Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law on April 22.[49]

The Florida First District Court of Appeal had reinstated the congressional district boundaries on May 20, overruling Leon County Circuit Court Judge Layne Smith's temporary hold on the map.[50][51] On May 11, Smith issued an order declaring Florida's enacted congressional map unconstitutional, saying, "The enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair District amendment. It diminishes African-Americans’ ability to elect the representative of their choice." Smith also said a map drawn by a court-appointed special master should be substituted for the enacted map in the 2022 elections.[52] The plaintiffs in the case filed an emergency appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, seeking a hold on the enacted congressional map.[53]

DeSantis signed the original congressional map into law on April 22, 2022.[54] The map bill was proposed and approved by the Florida State Legislature during a special session called for the purposes of redistricting. The Florida State Senate voted 24-15 to approve the map on April 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 68-34 to approve the map on April 21.[55][56]

This was the second congressional map bill approved by the state legislature. DeSantis vetoed the first on March 29. Republican leaders in the legislature said on April 11 that they would wait to receive a map from DeSantis to support.[57] DeSantis submitted a map to the legislature on April 13, which became the enacted map.[58]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Florida Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Florida Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

#### Reactions[edit]

When DeSantis vetoed the initial map bill he wrote in a memo that "Congressional District 5 [Lawson's district] in both the primary and secondary maps enacted by the Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it assigns voters primarily on the basis of race but is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest."[59] Florida Politics's Jacob Ogles wrote of the enacted map, "The most controversial change DeSantis made in his map, this new CD 4 really stands in as the replacement to the Lawson seat. [...] The Black population in Jacksonville gets cleaved in half by the St. Johns River after DeSantis vetoed a map drawn by the Florida House that created a Duval-only Black seat."[60]

State Rep. Tracie Davis (D) said "You hate when we use the word disenfranchisement. You turn your back. You look the other way. But you have to realize that is exactly what this is: Gutting, now-CD 4 … leaves us simply without representation. It simply means that the Black population in Florida that lives north of the I-4 corridor, their voices will be diluted. Their power in this process simply washed away."[61] State Rep. Dotie Joseph (D) criticized the partisan makeup of the map, saying, "They basically stacked the deck 20-8 in favor of Republicans, so this allows this power-hungry GOP to continue to ignore the needs of the people of Florida by cheating."[62]

Rep. Randy Fine (R) supported the enacted map, saying "When we guarantee that a group of people gets to select the candidate of their choice, what we’re saying is we are guaranteeing those who aren’t a part of that group gets no say."[63] Rep. Kaylee Tuck (R) said, "[DeSantis] publicly submitted maps, which is something that anybody can do. He’s allowed to do it. Every single member of the public was allowed to do it. And just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s just different. The process was thorough, it was transparent. It was open. It was complete. It was constitutional. And it was good."[61]

#### 2020 presidential results[edit]

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[64] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[65]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Florida

District  | 2022 district | Political predecessor district
Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Joe Biden | Donald Trump
Florida's 1st | 33.0% | 65.3% | 32.4% | 65.9%
Florida's 2nd | 44.0% | 55.0% | FL-02: 32.0%
FL-05: 67.0% | FL-02: 62.7%
FL-05: 36.2%
Florida's 3rd | 42.4% | 56.5% | 42.8% | 56.0%
Florida's 4th | 46.0% | 52.7% | FL-02: 32.0%
FL-05: 67.0% | FL-02: 62.7%
FL-05: 36.2%
Florida's 5th | 41.5% | 57.3% | 38.9% | 59.9%
Florida's 6th | 37.7% | 61.4% | 40.8% | 58.3%
Florida's 7th | 46.7% | 52.2% | 54.6% | 44.2%
Florida's 8th | 40.6% | 58.3% | 40.6% | 58.3%
Florida's 9th | 58.2% | 40.8% | 53.0% | 46.1%
Florida's 10th | 65.3% | 33.5% | 62.0% | 37.0%
Florida's 11th | 44.1% | 55.0% | 33.8% | 65.4%
Florida's 12th | 35.1% | 63.9% | 41.0% | 57.9%
Florida's 13th | 46.1% | 52.9% | 51.5% | 47.4%
Florida's 14th | 59.0% | 39.8% | 57.2% | 41.6%
Florida's 15th | 47.9% | 51.0% | \
 | \

Florida's 16th | 45.1% | 54.0% | 45.5% | 53.6%
Florida's 17th | 41.6% | 57.6% | 35.9% | 63.3%
Florida's 18th | 38.1% | 60.9% | 45.2% | 53.7%
Florida's 19th | 39.1% | 60.2% | 39.6% | 59.7%
Florida's 20th | 75.9% | 23.5% | 77.3% | 22.1%
Florida's 21st | 45.0% | 54.4% | 45.5% | 53.9%
Florida's 22nd | 58.5% | 40.9% | 58.2% | 41.2%
Florida's 23rd | 56.3% | 43.1% | 57.1% | 42.3%
Florida's 24th | 74.3% | 25.2% | 75.4% | 24.0%
Florida's 25th | 59.7% | 39.7% | 58.3% | 41.2%
Florida's 26th | 40.6% | 58.9% | 38.2% | 61.2%
Florida's 27th | 49.6% | 49.9% | 51.3% | 48.1%
Florida's 28th | 46.5% | 52.9% | 46.9% | 52.5%

### Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On March 3, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved new legislative maps drawn by the Florida State Legislature. These maps took effect for Florida's 2022 legislative elections.

The maps were passed by the legislature as a joint resolution. The Florida State Senate voted 34-3 to approve the bill on January 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 77-39 to approve the bill on February 2.[66] Since the maps were passed as a joint resolution, they did not require the signature of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to become law. After the legislature approved the maps, they submitted them to Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R), who then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review the maps on February 9.[67][68]

#### State Senate map[edit]

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Florida State Senate Districts
until November 7, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Florida State Senate Districts
starting November 8, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

#### State House map[edit]

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

### Florida State House Districts
until November 7, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

### Florida State House Districts
starting November 8, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

#### Reactions[edit]

Following the legislative approval of the maps, Senate President Wilton Simpson (R) said, "Thank you to this body for the professionalism we brought to the process this year with redistricting. We can and should be very proud of the work we’ve done here today and we’ll see if the courts are equally as proud." State Rep. Geraldine Thompson (D) criticized the House map, saying "While we won’t show retrogression in terms of fewer minority seats, at the same time, unfortunately we won’t show progression — progress in terms of the participation of minority populations in this chamber."[69]

### Redistricting after the 2010 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Florida after the 2010 census

### Congressional redistricting, 2010[edit]

Following the 2010 United States Census, Florida gained two congressional seats. In November 2010, voters approved two separate constitutional amendments establishing that congressional and state legislative districts must meet the following criteria (Amendment 6 applied to congressional districts; Amendment 5 applied to legislative districts):[70][71]

“  | [Districts] may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.[6] | ”

|
|

—Florida Division of Elections

On February 9, 2012, the Republican-controlled state legislature approved new congressional lines. On February 16, 2012, the plan was signed into law.

#### Legal challenges[edit]

See also: Florida Congressional District Boundaries, Amendment 6 (2010)

* On February 9, 2012, the map's opponents filed suit "challenging the congressional plan on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries."

* On July 10, 2014, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry P. Lewis found that "districts 5 and 10 were drawn in contravention" of the state constitution, "thus making the redistricting map unconstitutional as drawn." Lewis specified that Districts 5 and 10 "were the product of [prohibited] intent to benefit a political party or incumbent." Lewis required that these two districts be redrawn (as well as any districts impacted by the redrawing of the aforementioned). The court ordered that the state legislature convene a special session to draft a new map.[72][73]

“  | Republican political consultants or operatives did, in fact, conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process...They made a mockery of the Legislature’s proclaimed transparency and open process of redistricting by doing all of this in the shadow of that process, utilizing the access it gave them to the decision makers, but going to great lengths to conceal from the public their plan and their participation in it.[6] | ”

|
|

—Judge Terry P. Lewis[74]

Florida Supreme Court

* On August 22, 2014, Lewis approved the new map. The map's challengers, "a group of individual voters and groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida and Common Cause Florida," appealed the newly approved map to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that "the changes made by the legislature ... were superficial and did not cure the fundamental flaws" in the original map.[72][75]

* On July 9, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision to approve the remedial map, ruling that the trial court's "finding of unconstitutional intent" called for "a more meaningful remedy commensurate with the constitutional violations it found." The court specified that at least eight districts must be redrawn. The districts identified by the state supreme court included the following: District 5, District 13, District 14, District 21, District 22, District 25, District 26, and District 27. The court ruled 5-2 on the matter. Justice Barbara Pariente wrote the court's majority opinion.[76][77][78][79] Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, wrote the following in an analysis for Election Law Blog:[80]

“  | A major basis for today’s Florida Supreme Court decision is that the Florida legislature wrongly believed or purported to believe that the Voting Rights Act required raising the population of black voters to certain high levels. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision this Term in the Alabama racial-gerrymandering cases, the Florida court found that the VRA did not require raising the black populations to these levels. The Florida court concluded that the Republican legislature had done this for partisan political purposes, i.e., as a way to pack Democratic voters into a few districts and limit their power elsewhere. Because Florida’s Constitution now bans partisan gerrymandering, as a result of a voter initiative, these districts therefore were in violation of Florida law.[6] | ”

|
|

—Richard Pildes

* Congressional elections in 2012 and 2014 took place under the congressional map approved in 2012. The state supreme court ordered that a new map be adopted and implemented for the 2016 election.[72][81]

* On August 21, 2015, the Florida State Legislature adjourned a special two-week session without adopting a new congressional district map. This marked the legislature's third redistricting attempt. Governor Rick Scott (R) said that he would not convene another special session. As a result, it fell to a Florida trial judge to "choose a House or Senate [proposed] map, solicit other options, or create his own."[82][83]

* On December 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court granted final approval to a new congressional district map. The map was "drawn by a coalition led by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause of Florida, and several Democrat-leaning individuals, and approved by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis." The state supreme court upheld the remedial map by a 5-2 decision. An image of this map can be accessed here.[84]

### State legislative redistricting, 2010[edit]

On February 9, 2012, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan via joint resolution. The Florida Supreme Court approved the state House map, but rejected the state Senate map. The legislature revised the state Senate map on March 27, 2012, and it was approved by the state supreme court.

#### Legal challenges[edit]

On September 5, 2012, the League of Women Voters of Florida filed suit challenging the state Senate district map "on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries." The state filed a series of motions to dismiss in 2012 and 2013, but these were ultimately denied. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2015.[72][85]

In autumn 2015, the Florida State Senate requested that the trial court appoint a redistricting expert to draw new state Senate district maps. On November 13, 2015, circuit court judge George Reynolds rejected this request, saying, "It appears to me that we just don't have enough time left to engage in any process, other than the one we are currently on. I do that with some reluctance because I could use all the help that I can get in making this decision." Reynolds ordered that the trial, scheduled to begin on December 14, 2015, go on as scheduled. In addition, Reynolds ordered that proposed district maps be submitted to the court by November 18, 2015.[86][87]

On December 21, 2015, Reynolds approved a new state Senate district map. The adopted remedial map was proposed by "a coalition of voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Florida." The remedial map can be accessed here.[88][89]

## State legislation and ballot measures[edit]

### Redistricting legislation[edit]

See state election laws

The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of the Florida state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:

* State
* Bill number
* Official bill name or caption
* Most recent action date
* Legislative status
* Sponsor party
* Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

### Redistricting ballot measures[edit]

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Florida ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Florida.

1. Florida Amendment 3, Single-Member Legislative Districts and Reapportionment Amendment (1978)
2. Florida Amendment 1, Apportionment of the Legislature Amendment (1964)
3. Florida Amendment 5, Reapportionment of the Legislature Amendment (1956)
4. Florida Amendment 1, Apportionment of the Legislature Amendment (1959)
5. Florida Amendment 1, Apportionment and Number of Legislatures Amendment (1962)
6. Florida Amendment 5, Bay and Washington Counties Senatorial District Amendment (1952)
7. Florida Amendment 6, Monroe County Senatorial District Amendment (1952)
8. Florida Amendment 3, New Senatorial Districts Amendment (1948)
9. Florida Amendment 6, Senate Districts and Redistricting Amendment (1942)
10. Florida Apportionment of the Legislature Amendment (1924)
11. Florida Legislative Districts and Representatives Amendment (1922)
12. Florida Reapportionment of the Legislature Amendment (1916)
13. Florida Representation of New Counties Amendment (1900)
14. Florida Amendment 2, Legislative Districts Amendment (1944)

## Political impacts of redistricting[edit]

### Competitiveness[edit]

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[90]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[91]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[92]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[93]

#### State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

There were 14 competitive elections for the Florida House of Representatives in 2012, compared to four in 2010. There were 10 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to two in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of 18 competitive elections.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Florida. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Florida - Google News

## See also[edit]

* United States census, 2020
* Redistricting in Florida after the 2010 census
* Redistricting
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Majority-minority districts
* State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

## External links[edit]

* All About Redistricting
* Dave's Redistricting
* FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
* National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
* FairVote, "Redistricting"

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, "Common Cause Florida v. Byrd," March 27, 2024
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
7. ↑ CBS News, "Florida appeals court upholds congressional redistricting plan backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis," December 1, 2023
8. ↑ Politico, "Florida’s high court poised to protect DeSantis’ congressional map that helps GOP," September 12, 2024
9. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
10. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
11. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
12. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
15. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
16. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
17. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
18. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
19. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
20. ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
21. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
22. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
23. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
24. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
25. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
26. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
27. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
28. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
29. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
30. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
31. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
32. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
33. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
34. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
35. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
36. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
37. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
38. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
39. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
40. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
41. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 All About Redistricting, "Florida," accessed April 22, 2015
43. ↑ Florida Constitution, "Article III, Sections 20-21," accessed April 22, 2015
44. ↑ The Florida Senate, "Redistricting 2012-2014," accessed April 22, 2015
45. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
46. ↑ CBS News, "Florida appeals court upholds congressional redistricting plan backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis," December 1, 2023
47. ↑ Politico, "Florida’s high court poised to protect DeSantis’ congressional map that helps GOP," September 12, 2024
48. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Judge rules against DeSantis in challenge to congressional map," September 2, 2023
49. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to congressional map ahead of Midterms," June 2, 2022
50. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida appeals court reinstates DeSantis’ congressional map," May 20, 2022
51. ↑ Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, "Secretary of State Laurel Lee v. Black Voters Matter, et al.," May 20, 2022
52. ↑ NBC News, "Florida judge says he’ll block DeSantis' congressional redistricting map," May 11, 2022
53. ↑ Florida Supreme Court, "Black Voters Matter, et al. v. Cord Byrd, Florida Secretary of State," May 23, 2022
54. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis signs his congressional map into law," April 22, 2022
55. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Senate passes Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map," April 20, 2022
56. ↑ Florida Politics, "Legislature approves Gov. DeSantis’ controversial congressional redistricting map," April 21, 2022
57. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Legislature won’t draft new redistricting map, deferring to DeSantis," April 11, 2022
58. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis submits congressional redistristing plan critics contend is ‘partisan gerrymandering’," April 14, 2022
59. ↑ Florida Office of the Governor, "Memorandum Re: Constitutionality of CS/SB 102, An Act Relating to Establishing the Congressional Districts of the State," March 29, 2022
60. ↑ Florida Politics, "Tour every congressional district on Florida’s new congressional map," April 25, 2022
61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 CBS Miami, "Florida House Redistricting Plan Passes As Democrats Protest," April 21, 2022
62. ↑ CBS Miami, "Florida Legislative Black Caucus Fights Back Against Gov. DeSantis’ Redistricting Map," April 22, 2022
63. ↑ Click Orlando, "Central Florida lawmakers protest governor’s redistricting map before it passes in House," April 21, 2022
64. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
65. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
66. ↑ Florida State Senate, "CS/SJR 100: Joint Resolution of Apportionment," accessed March 3, 2022
67. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Legislature approves redistricting maps for Senate and House," February 3, 2022
68. ↑ Florida Politics, "Ashley Moody petitions court on legislative maps as congressional redistricting continues to pitter," February 9, 2022
69. ↑ The Derrick, "Florida Legislature approves its own redistricting maps as DeSantis seeks court ruling," February 3, 2022
70. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
71. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
72. ↑ 72.0 72.1 72.2 72.3 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle," accessed April 22, 2015
73. ↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
74. ↑ Politico, "Judge tosses Florida congressional map," July 10, 2014
75. ↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
76. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Supreme Court orders new congressional map with eight districts to be redrawn," July 9, 2015
77. ↑ Florida Supreme Throws Out Congressional Map, Orders Battleground Districts Redrawn," July 9, 2015
78. ↑ Florida Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner: Opinion," July 9, 2015
79. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Florida Supreme Court Orders Legislature to Redraw U.S. House Districts," July 9, 2015
80. ↑ Election Law Blog, "The Alabama Redistricting Cases and Today’s Decision Invalidating Eight Congressional Districts in Florida," July 9, 2015
81. ↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
82. ↑ The Miami Herald, "Florida Legislature ends special session with no agreement on new congressional districts," August 21, 2015
83. ↑ NPR, "Judge To Redraw Florida's Congressional Maps After Legislature Fails To Reach Deal," August 21, 2015
84. ↑ Miami Herald, "Florida Supreme Court approves congressional map drawn by challengers," December 2, 2015
85. ↑ CBS Miami, "Senate Redistricting Battle Looms," July 8, 2015
86. ↑ The Miami Herald, "Judge orders Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015
87. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Judge orders Florida Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015
88. ↑ Florida Politics, "Judge selects plaintiffs’ map in Senate redistricting case," December 21, 2015
89. ↑ Florida Politics, "New state Senate seats renumbered," January 5, 2016
90. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
91. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
92. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
93. ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021

v • e

Election policy

Election legislation|

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker • Ballotpedia's The Ballot Bulletin • Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics • Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Election dates and deadlines • Election Day voting • Ranked-choice voting • Redistricting • Voter registration

* * *

Election administration|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Voting policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Electoral systems policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Primary elections policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Redistricting policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Recount laws|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
political candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
presidential candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for
political parties|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Electoral systems|

Single-winner system • Multi-winner system • Block voting system • Plurality voting system • Majority voting system • Top-two primary • Blanket primary • Open primary • Closed primary • Semi-closed primary • Top-four primary • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • STAR voting • Approval voting • Fusion voting

* * *

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Michael Leland • Jon Dunn • Amy Handlin • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup • Mina Vogel
Content Strategy: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content|

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

v • e

State of Florida
Tallahassee (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy